What if much that you think you know about agriculture, farming and food isn't actually true? What if there are "myths" that have been intentionally and mostly unintentionally spread about these issues? What if the truth about these issues matters for the future of humanity? That is what this blog is about.
If you are interested in learning more about my business as a public speaker, please visit my website, drstevesavage.com.

To follow by Email (RSS Feed)

Thursday, March 9, 2017

The EPA Deserves Some Respect

Do you remember how comedian Rodney Dangerfield always used to say:
“I can’t get no respect!” Lately that is how it seems for environmental
regulatory agencies like the EPA.I
feel as though we need to defend the very idea of sound regulation against
three intensifying challenges:

·threats of defunding or arbitrary rollbacks
coming from some on the populist-right

·a denial of the progress that has been made by
some on the eco-left, and

·a severe under-appreciation of our legacy of environmental
protection by American society as a whole

I certainly can’t defend or critique all regulation, but as
an agricultural scientist I have observed four decades of a reasonably function
federal and state level regulation of pesticides and other crop protection
agents.I’m not saying that system
is perfect, but I have witnessed how it has greatly advanced the health and
environmental profile of this sector.I’ve watched the sifting out of problematic practices in response to increasingly
sophisticated scientific understanding.I’ve also watched how this system has provided a framework that that
encouraged the private investment and innovation needed to bring farmers better
and safer tools with which to protect their crops and thus our food supply.

I speak here strictly as an individual not trying to speak
for any company or organization. I have had a long career in this sector.I’ve never had a regulatory compliance
role as such, but I’ve been involved in the process of finding and seeking
regulatory guidance and/or approval for products based on synthetic chemicals,
natural product-based chemicals, and live biological control agents. I’ve
interacted with dozens of employees of the EPA, the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation and other state-level regulators. Yes, my industry
connections and experience gives me a certain bias, but it also gives me some
practical and historical perspective from which to share.

I believe that our goal should be to refine our
regulatory processes, not to dismantle, dismiss or fail to appreciate them. To
pursue that refinement goal I believe that there are four principles of sound regulation
that can be learned from this example.Good things can happen when we have:

1.A system that is consistently guided by science
and adjusted as scientific understanding evolves

2.A system where regulatory decision making is
reasonably free from political pressures and agendas

3.A system which focuses on managing the risk of
harm, rather than on based on hazard out of the context of real-world exposure

4.A system which maintains perspective on
benefit/cost trade-offs

5.A system which is sufficiently predictable and
timely so that it remains rational to make a substantial and continuing private-sector
investment in the development of innovative new solutions

A few years ago I gathered historical information about the
pesticide use on what is still one of my favorite crops – California wine
grapes. The chart below shows the trend for one measure of toxicity for this
crop, but it is indicative of trends in other crops and with other measures of
impact.Pesticides have clearly
changed for the better, both in terms of what they provide for the farmers and
in terms of their safety profile.

This progress was possible because of massive and sustained
private investment. That, in turn, was possible because the industry could
count on a fairly rational regulatory process.This was in no way a cozy relationship, but it was
functional. The nature of the EPA regulations has definitely evolved over the
decades as guided by developments in environmental science and toxicology, but
the process is sufficiently rational to encourage further investment to find the
newer, better tools.This is an excellent
example of successful innovation under an intense, but highly functional
regulatory regime.

I wish I was fully optimistic about this process moving
forward, but I have some deep concerns regarding the public perception of the
EPA. First of all, very few consumers, voters, reporters or food thought
leaders seem to have any appreciation for the progress made over nearly five
decades of EPA pesticide regulation. Instead, I see assumptions or expressed views
about crop pesticides that are a distorted caricature that does not even fit
with “the bad old days” prior to regulation. The positive historical impact of
the EPA case has been inadequately articulated. This leaves the agency
vulnerable to the populist urge to discard or severely restrict its role. The
under-appreciation of marked progress made with EPA oversight provides fertile
ground for unethical marketers who exploit fear of pesticides for economic
gain. Similarly, an under-appreciated EPA helps to empower activists such as
those in Hawaii who are exploiting fear to drive a politicized over-ride of
agricultural regulation.

I am also concerned about the role of science in EPA pesticide
regulation going forward. Primarily in Europe, but increasingly in the US, we
see junk science and activist manipulation diminishing the scientific integrity
of the regulatory process.Problematic
examples include questions about pollinator health or the IARC cancer hazard
statements. In these and other situations we need a trusted, robust,
independent EPA that confers with a robust, independent academic science
community, as it has historically. We need an EPA that appropriately considers
the risk/reward profile of its actions and which appreciates the eco-modernist
perspective. What we don’t need is an EPA distracted by endless activist
lawsuits or facing political uncertainty about its future. We need an EPA that
gets a little respect.

What in the world is "applied mythology?"

I've been involved in agricultural technology for more than 30 years. I was originally trained as a plant pathologist but my career has taken me into many other disciplines and touched on many different crops and geographies. I'm married, have three grown kids and one grand daughter. I like to garden, and play guitar.

I'm passionate about meeting the challenge of feeding 9-10 billion people without destroying the environments. I believe that technology is a big part of how we will do that and I am deeply concerned about the increasingly anti-science environment in which we live today. I've been blogging now for more than 5 years and increasingly doing public speaking on this topic. My speaker website is www.drstevesavage.com